Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
No. 13-2487
LUCIANE MARIA DASILVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, JR.,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Harvey J. Bazile, on brief for petitioner.

Jessica E. Sherman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Song Park,
Senior Litigation Counsel, and Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.

November 17, 2014

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Luciane Maria DaSilva seeks

review of a decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

("BIA") affirming an order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ").

The IJ

found that DaSilva entered into a fraudulent marriage with a United

States citizen in order to procure illegal admission into the
United States as a lawful permanent resident, and thus ordered her
removed. For the reasons set forth below, we deny her petition for
review.
On January 5, 2007, DaSilva, a native and citizen of
Brazil, married Rafael Gonzalez, a United States citizen.

On July

26, 2007, DaSilva's immigration status was adjusted to that of a

lawful permanent resident based on her marriage.
she

submitted

naturalization

application

On June 6, 2010,

to

United

States

Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") that was denied in

July 2011.
her

In March 2011, after determining that DaSilva obtained

permanent-resident

status

by

entering

into

fraudulent

marriage with Gonzalez, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")

commenced removal proceedings against her.
with

removability

under

U.S.C.

DaSilva was charged

1227(a)(1)(A),

and

her

inadmissability was based on 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(I).

At the removal hearing, Maria Helena Knoller was the
primary witness for DHS.

Knoller, previously an immigration-form

preparer, had pleaded guilty in United States District Court to

concealing and shielding illegal aliens and to aiding and abetting

-2-

marriage fraud. The record included Knoller's conviction documents

as well as a sworn declaration identifying aliens for whom she had
arranged

fraudulent

marriages.

The

documents

reflected

that

Knoller had facilitated fraudulent marriages for thirty-two couples

and had documented the marriages in her records by the couples'
initials, date of marriage, and place of marriage.

One of the

couples listed, "R.G." and "L.M.D.", married on January 5, 2007 in

Brattleboro, VT, corresponded to the date and location of Gonzalez
and DaSilva's marriage.
Knoller testified that she received $7,800 from DaSilva
to arrange a fraudulent marriage, that she introduced DaSilva to
Gonzalez, and that Gonzalez also received compensation for his
participation in the marriage.
During the removal hearing, DaSilva testified that she
met Gonzalez at a friend's house in Springfield, Massachusetts on
Thanksgiving Day, 2005 and that they decided to get married on
January 5, 2007 at a ski resort in Vermont because they were in
love.

She explained that she later separated from Gonzalez after

he impregnated another woman and spent several months incarcerated.

Additionally, DaSilva admitted that although she and Gonzalez did
not live together after August 2010, she falsely reported that they
were both living at her employer's residence after that date.

She

included the false information on her naturalization application,

lied under oath to that effect during her naturalization interview,

-3-

and arranged and filed a fraudulent letter from her employer with
USCIS.
The IJ found that Knoller's testimony was credible, as it
was consistent with her declaration and the criminal information
filed against her in district court.

The IJ determined that

DaSilva, on the other hand, was not credible, noting that she could
not recall the name of the friend who introduced her to Gonzalez,
Gonzalez's sister's name, the name of the town in Vermont where she
and Gonzalez married, the name of the woman who had Gonzalez's
child while DaSilva and Gonzalez were still married, or where
Gonzalez was incarcerated for three months during their marriage,
and that she admitted to misrepresenting her living situation. The
IJ concluded that DHS met its burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that DaSilva was subject to removal for having
fraudulently married Gonzalez in order to procure an immigration
benefit.

The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ's decision.

We review the IJ's findings of fact and determinations of

credibility under the substantial evidence rule, upholding the

decision "so long as it is supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole."

Syed

v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 248, 251 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal quotations
and citation omitted).

"Since the IJ has the best vantage point

from which to assess the witnesses' testimonies and demeanors," our

review of the IJ's factual findings and credibility determinations

-4-

is highly deferential.

Cuko v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 32, 37 (1st Cir.

2008).
DaSilva contends that the government did not meet its
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that she was
subject to removal as charged.

She avers that the IJ erred in

crediting Knoller's testimony, in discrediting her own testimony,

and in not requiring the government to present documentary evidence
that the marriage was fraudulent.
We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's
credibility

determinations.

First,

Knoller's

testimony

that

DaSilva paid her to arrange a fraudulent marriage was corroborated

by her declaration and the information filed against Knoller in her
criminal proceedings.

DaSilva provided minimal evidence to refute

this testimony. Cf. Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96, 10304 (1st Cir.
2005) (concluding that alien made strong showing that marriage was
legitimate by introducing evidence that they engaged in lengthy
courtship,

cohabitated,

enrolled

jointly

in

health-insurance

policy, opened joint bank accounts, filed joint tax returns,

entered auto-financing agreements, and secured a joint credit
card).
Second,

DaSilva's

testimony

lacked

detail,

was

inconsistent with the documents in the record, and was unreliable.

See, e.g., Syed, 389 F.3d at 252 (holding that respondent's
vagueness

and

contradiction

supported

-5-

adverse

credibility

determination).

At the hearing, DaSilva was unable to recall

specifics about her "husband" and her married life.

See Rodriguez

Del Carmen v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 41, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding
that wife's inability to recall important details of her married
life sustained finding that she never lived with or had relations
with alien). Moreover, DaSilva admitted to submitting a fraudulent
document, lying under oath, and including false information on her
naturalization application.

Cf. Syed, 389 F.3d at 252 (holding

that IJ's adverse credibility finding entitled to deference where

IJ's

reasoning

was

based

in

part

on

alien's

submission

of

fraudulent letter, undermining alien's credibility).

As

the

IJ's

credibility

findings

are

supported

by

substantial record evidence, we DENY DaSilva's petition for review.

-6-